Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

IS INDIVIDUALISM BAD FOR SOCIETY?
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5721

“…individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine” Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism

Everything from social fragmentation to the economic crisis, and the riots that broke out across English cities in the summer, has been blamed on a modern ‘cult of individualism’, epitomised by Margaret Thatcher’s insistence that ‘there is no such thing as society’. Labour leader Ed Miliband denounces ‘a “take what you can” culture’ that began in the 1980s, which he concedes New Labour did little to challenge. But Tory Prime Minister David Cameron also seeks to distance himself from his infamous predecessor, championing the ‘Big Society’. It has become routine to despair of individuals’ greed for consumer goods. More broadly, strong-willed individuals who know their own minds are accused of arrogance, egotism, even bullying. But isn’t there something to be said for individualism? After all, the individual has historically been asssociated with independence of mind, self-determination and self-reliance. Strong individuals have been admired for their courage and imagination, even valued for the unique contributions they can make to society rather than regarded as necessarily undermining social solidarity. So are we wrong to focus on the negatives, or is it time we recognised the damaging effects of individualism? Critics remind us that the individual smoker’s choice can imperil public health; one person’s free speech can cause offence and sow discord for countless others; motorists who insist on their individual freedom to drive petrol-guzzling SUVs clutter the roads and pollute the air.

Meanwhile, developments in neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and genetics cast doubt on the very idea of individual autonomy: some suggest free will is an illusion. Individuals are seen as hapless and hopeless if left to their own devices, too easily influenced by the malign advertisers or populist demagogues. Paternalist policy-makers and ‘choice architects’ regard the idea of moral autonomy as little more than an inconvenience, preferring to nudge individuals into making the right choices. But don’t diminished views of the individual also undermine the possibility of a strong society? If the ‘we’ in any collective comprises such feeble individuals, what is the content of society or solidarity?

Arguably, even seemingly self-sacrificing acts of public service - from volunteering to help others to laying down one’s life for a greater cause - require a strong sense of personal autonomy. By contrast, if we value conformity to social norms above individuality, is our ‘free will’ reduced to what JS Mill called ‘ape-like imitation’? And anyway, does self-interest necessarily preclude generosity, empathy and solidarity? Was selfish individualism really to blame for the summer’s riots?

Speakers
Dr Maurice Glasman
architect, ‘Blue Labour’; director, faith and citizenship programme, London Metropolitan University; Labour life peer (Baron Glasman); author, Unnecessary Suffering: managing market utopia

Clifford Longley
author, broadcaster and journalist; leader writer and columnist, Tablet; pannellist; BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze

John Sutherland
Emeritus Lord Northcliffe Professor of English Literature, University College London; author, The Lives of the Novelists

Bruno Waterfield
Brussels correspondent, The Times; co-author, No Means No

Chair
Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Battle of Ideas 2011

Is individualism bad for society?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

LOYALTY IN AN AGE OF WHISTLE-BLOWING AND WIKILEAKS
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5596

Until recently, leaking - the disclosure of confidential information - was generally perceived as an act of disloyalty, irresponsibility or betrayal. It was also rare, and for the leaker it involved a moral dilemma. More recently, it is secrecy, confidentiality and privacy that have been stigmatised. So what was once castigated as an act of betrayal is increasingly recast as the heroic deed of a brave whistle-blower. Loyalty is no longer seen as an unalloyed virtue, disloyalty no longer viewed wholly negatively. One reason breaches of confidence have become normalised is that trust in officialdom and institutions, from parliament to multinational corporations, has been steadily eroded. We seem to take it for granted that politicians lie and big business is involved in dodgy dealings behind closed doors. In such circumstances, it is not what politicians, officials and business leaders say or do, but rather what they are allegedly trying to hide that becomes the subject of interest. Hence, the leaking of information per se is presented as an heroic act: anything that means more transparency can only be good.

This feeds a new form of conspiratorial thinking. Wikileaks’ Julian Assange and his followers argue that as long various networks of conspirators are free to plot behind the scenes, their domination of the world will continue. Thus, exposing their nefarious activities to the public gaze represents a blow for freedom, since it diminishes the flow of ‘important communication between authoritarian conspirators’ and weakens their grip over society. Others suggest this worldview is overly simplistic, and actually fuels rumour, suspicion and mistrust? If people believe their lives are controlled by hidden forces beyond their comprehension, won’t the public become even more immobilised and cynical? And if institutions and individuals in positions of authority constantly fear their private deliberations and confidential correspondence may be leaked, won’t they become more wary of frank exchanges? More guarded, more secretive? And how useful is all this leaked information anyway? While leaks can embarrass individuals and institutions and occasionally bring to light important facts, are they a serious replacement for what can potentially be learned through analysing the world, through research and investigation, and, of course, through the clash of opinions and ideas?

Should organisations expect loyalty from staff? Should colleagues demand loyalty from one another? What distinguishes loyalty from blind obedience? Is the problem that there are too few organisations and causes that are genuinely worthy of loyalty?

Speakers
Mick Hume
editor-at-large, online magazine spiked; author, Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech?

Joyce McMillan
chair, Hansard Society Working Group in Scotland; judge, 2010 Saltire Scottish Book of the Year Award; theatre critic, Scotsman

Henry Porter
political columnist, Observer; UK editor, Vanity Fair; novelist; author, Brandenburg winner of Ian Fleming Steel Dagger award for best thriller

Gwyn Prins
research professor, LSE; director, LSE Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events

Richard Sexton
partner, PwC

Chair
Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Loyalty in an age of whistle-blowing and Wikileaks

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

FRACKING AND FUKUSHIMA: OUR ENERGY SECURITY FEARS
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5719

To a casual observer, two of the biggest news stories of early 2011 – the Arab Spring and the partial meltdown of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant after an earthquake and tsunami – could hardly have seemed more different. But for many in the West, the two events had one important factor in common: both had global consequences for the problem of energy. Political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa sent panic through the energy markets as oil supplies were once again threatened, while the spectre of nuclear meltdown at Fukushima offered a grim reminder of the risks posed by moving beyond ‘dirty’ fossil fuels. Indeed, barely a year goes by without an energy problem dominating the headlines: be it the BP oil spill of 2010 or recurring disputes between Russia and Ukraine over gas supplies. Even before one factors in the challenge posed to the EU27 countries by their commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 20% on 1990 levels by 2020, energy security is near the top of the agenda of every leading nation.

With renewable energy still a long way from being able to meet the shortfall, many gloomily predict a future of brown-outs, tough energy efficiency measures, regular deep-sea drilling disasters and even bitter resource wars. Yet not everyone is so pessimistic. The discovery of huge reserves of shale gas around North America and Europe has been dubbed a ‘game-changer’ in terms of security and reducing environmental impact, although some doubt the safety of the apparently miraculous ‘fracking’ process. Despite the apocalyptic nightmares, however, even some leading sceptical campaigners conceded that the avoidance of catastrophe at Fukushima demonstrated the potential safety of nuclear energy over other available forms. Others advocate ambitious global energy grids of the sort under construction in the North Sea and west coast US, but even this might end up creating more security headaches than it solves.

Will the struggle for energy security result in a new ‘Great Game’, as some predict, with increasingly energy-thirsty developing countries joining the fight for dwindling resources? With the UK’s notoriously ambivalent approach to providing abundant energy, will ‘less is more’ become a patriotic duty as well as an eco-mantra? What role can innovation and alternative energy sources play in keeping the lights on?

Speakers
Professor Gordon MacKerron
director of Science and Technology Policy Research, School of Business, Management and Economics, University of Sussex

Tanya Morrison
government relations manager, climate changes, Shell

James Woudhuysen
visiting professor, London South Bank University

Chair
Tony Gilland
associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Fracking and Fukushima: our energy security fears

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

HAS TOLERANCE GONE TOO FAR?
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5601

Tolerance is a virtue, except when it isn’t. Critics of ‘the permissive society’ have long warned against the idea that anything goes, and even championed ‘zero tolerance’ policing. But many self-styled liberals are just as intolerant when it comes to ‘hate speech’ – for example the homophobic rants of the Westboro Baptist Church in the US, or misogynist rap lyrics – or the burqa, regarded as a symbol of women’s oppression. And the one thing many won’t tolerate is the intolerance of others. But do we confuse tolerance with respect and approval? Can we uphold the idea of tolerance while maintaining the right to criticise and judge rather than succumbing to moral relativism?

The tradition of tolerance – through John Locke, Voltaire, Kant and JS Mill – emphasised the importance of moral independence, not relativism. Locke tolerated what you thought because no one could ever establish tyranny in your heart. Mill also tolerated what you did – so long as it did not harm others. And crucially he valued the existence in society of views and opinions he found objectionable – their existence vital to the pursuit of truths which we should not assume we know. Tolerance, in this sense, was a response to a world made uncertain by the erosion of moral absolutes and conventional prejudices. As Voltaire wrote in his Essay on Tolerance: ‘Think for yourselves, and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too’. Today, by contrast, the big issue is where the limits of tolerance should be. Defining the concept of harm to include subjective harm is one way of tightening those limits: society should not tolerate the emotional distress caused by offensive speech. Some even argue we should not tolerate acts which harm only ourselves: banning smoking; curbing binge drinking; warning against ‘junk’ foods. And, in the name of protecting tolerant societies from their enemies, the war on terror has justified intolerant measures – laws against incitement to terrorism or religious hatred – in many countries. Is this is a pragmatic limitation, without which tolerance would be just a naive ideal, or is it simply political censorship? What does tolerance mean today?

If we allow tolerance to mean being non-judgemental, do we risk becoming indulgent, indifferent even? Does the concept of ‘zero tolerance’ – often deployed in defence of those at risk of harm – mask an unwillingness to debate and argue? Should we approach the question of tolerance from the standpoint of my freedom to act, or your need for security? Can we afford to be tolerant of those who are themselves intolerant?  Can we afford to tolerate other people making mistakes along the way to getting it right? Is tolerating the vulgar, the offensive, the shocking, not, in part, the price of liberty? Or are such concepts vain and dangerous in today’s very uncertain world?

Speakers
Christopher Caldwell
senior editor, Weekly Standard; columnist, Financial Times; author, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: immigration, Islam and the West

Professor Frank Furedi
sociologist and social commentator; author, What's Happened to the University?, Power of Reading: from Socrates to Twitter, On Tolerance and Authority: a sociological history

Professor Anna Elisabetta Galeotti
chair of political philosophy, University of Piemonte Orienatale in Vercelli; author, Toleration as Recognition

GM Tamás
visiting professor, Central European University; author, Les Idoles de la Tribu

Chair
Angus Kennedy
convenor, The Academy; author, Being Cultured: in defence of discrimination

Has tolerance gone too far?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

WHEN IS IT RIGHT TO GO TO WAR? KOSOVO, IRAQ AND BEYOND
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2009/session_detail/2520

Britain’s string of wars over the past ten years has brought questions of the rights and wrongs of going to war to the forefront of political debate. Ten years ago NATO bombed Yugoslavia to force it to withdraw from the breakaway province of Kosovo, in what the British Prime Minister Tony Blair called a humanitarian ‘war for values’. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was variously described as a campaign of preventive self-defence, or as an intervention to liberate Iraqis from Saddam’s tyranny. The attempt to secure United Nations backing for the Anglo-American invasion also focused attention on the relevance of UN authority and international law to the waging of war.

Today, the chances of another humanitarian intervention being mounted seem diminished because of the chaos that followed the invasion of Iraq. Yet Britain continues to fight a controversial campaign in Afghanistan, based on justifications that range from fighting terrorism to the war on drugs, to supporting women’s rights and Afghan democracy against Taliban oppression. The range of justifications given for Britain’s role in these wars has stoked debate about what it means to fight a just war in the 21st century. Are there valid justifications for waging war beyond those of self-defence and the national interest? Is today’s international environment so different from previous eras that we need to re-think the principles of just war? Does our government bear a ‘responsibility to protect’ individuals and peoples against grave human rights violations by states throughout the world? When is it right to go to war?

Speakers
Professor Chris Brown
professor, international relations, LSE; author, Understanding International Relations

Dr Philip Cunliffe
senior lecturer in international conflict, University of Kent; co-editor, Politics Without Sovereignty: a critique of contemporary international relations.

Douglas Murray
director, Centre for Social Cohesion; author, Neoconservatism: why we need it; political commentator

Benjamin Tallis
curator of Common Spaces, Fakulta Solidarnosoc; former political and strategic advisor/analyst, EU and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Chair
Dr Tara McCormack
lecturer in international politics, University of Leicester; author, Critique, Security and Power: the political limits to emancipatory approaches

When is it right to go to war? Kosovo, Iraq and beyond

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

A CULTURED EAR: WHY DOES LISTENING TO MUSIC MATTER?
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2009/session_detail/2527

Today it’s often lamented that, though music permeates society, we no longer value the act of listening. Indeed, have we lost touch with how we listen? Why do we listen to music, and how does the way we listen change in different contexts? Whereas the composers of the past wrote pieces for specific reasons, such as dances, coronations or religious ceremonies, music today can seem strangely de-contextualised. Arguably, listening to music as an end in itself is actually quite a new idea, so does it really matter?

Parents-to-be play Mozart to their fetuses in the womb, but this missionary zeal seems to wane when children are old enough to have tastes of their own. Commentators champion ‘participation’ in music for the social benefits they claim it brings, while staying mute on how to listen and make value judgements. With worries over ‘noise pollution’, deafness caused by loud pop concerts, and even concerns that orchestras mustn’t play Sibelius at full blast because it contravenes EU legislation on workplace safety, sound often seems something we’re supposed to protect ourselves from rather than relish.

But can our listening be too safe in a more critical sense? Within our own listening worlds, do we embrace the diverse, new and challenging music that is increasingly available? Enthusiasts insist classical music is better than all the rest, but doesn’t learning how to listen mean being able to appreciate all genres equally? Shouldn’t we be more critical in what we listen to, rather than seeing the same old classics as heritage to be preserved? And isn’t it even more ‘elitist’ to insist classical music is great without explaining why?

This debate is in partnership with ‘Hear Here!’ – the UK’s first classical music project dedicated to listening – presented by the Royal Philharmonic Society and Classic FM and supported by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

Speakers
Rachel Halliburton
deputy editor, Time Out London; theatre writer, Independent, Financial Times and Evening Standard

Professor Philip Hensher
professor of creative writing, Exeter University; columnist, Independent; novelist; author, The Northern Clemency

Ivan Hewett
chief music critic, Daily Telegraph; professor, Royal College of Music; broadcaster; author, Music: healing the rift

Tom Hutchinson
clarinettist; teacher; arts project manager, Royal Philharmonic Society

Karl-Erik Norrman
founder and secretary-general, European Cultural Parliament; former Swedish ambassador; author, The Gala Concert, Verdi/Wagner 200 years

Chair
Sarah Boyes
freelance writer and editor; assistant editor, Culture Wars; editor, Battles in Print 2010

A cultured ear: why does listening to music matter?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

NOVEL PURSUITS: CREATIVE WRITING AND THE DEMOCRATISATION OF LITERATURE?
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2009/session_detail/2574

‘Everyone has one novel in them’ so the saying goes. Only today the saying seems to have become a reality. Creative writing has taken off with a boom. The first creative writing course arrived in the UK in 1970 at the UEA, becoming a legendary breeding ground for novelists such as Ian McEwan and Kazuo Ishiguro under the tutelage of Malcolm Bradbury. Today there are over 200 postgraduate creative writing courses in the UK. But the creative writing explosion is not confined to the ivory towers of academia. From prisons to shopping malls, creative writing projects are anywhere and everywhere: from the Library of Unwritten Books, which encourages people ‘to spontaneously record their unrealised ideas, fictional tales, and personal histories’, to NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month) that challenges wannabee writers to knock out a 175 pages in a month, declaring that ‘the ONLY thing that matters in NaNoWriMo is output. It’s all about quantity, not quality. The kamikaze approach forces you to lower your expectations, take risks, and write on the fly’. The message seems to be just pick up a pen and express yourself.  Anyone can and should write creatively.

But should everybody try and write? Do more people writing mean more people are engaged with literature? Or are we diluting and dumbing-down the value of great literature by pretending that anyone can be an author? Novelist Jenny Diski had her foreword to an anthology of student writing rejected this year because rather than simply praising the work, she advised young authors to work harder at editing and redrafting. Is it better to take the NaNoWriMo approach and stop being so precious about the great art of writing, taking more risks and allowing more people to write by banishing the ghost of Dostoevsky? What can creative writing courses teach us about the art of writing? Isn’t literary genius something which is innate and can’t be taught? Who decides what great literature is and who can and can’t write anyway?

Speakers
David Bowden
associate fellow, Academy of Ideas; culture writer

Jenny Diski
novelist, Apology for the Woman Writing; essayist; memoirist; author, The Sixties

Adam Foulds
novelist, The Quickening Maze; poet, The Broken Word

Chris Hamilton-Emery
director, Salt Publishing; poet, Radio Nostalgia; author, 101 Ways to Make Poems Sell

Chair
Dr Shirley Dent
communications specialist (currently working with the British Veterinary Association media team); editor, tlfw.co.uk; author, Radical Blake

Novel Pursuits: creative writing and the democratisation of literature?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

THE STATE AND RECESSION: SOLUTION OR PART OF THE PROBLEM?
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2009/session_detail/2493

The current crisis has been welcomed by some as heralding the end of ‘neoliberalism’: the free market, free trade agenda that supported light touch regulation, tax cuts, privatisation, foreign direct investment and fiscal discipline. In its place are calls for a return to progressive taxation, government spending and subsidies and ever-tighter regulation of banks: the state is back and, commanding nearly 50 per cent of the UK economy, it’s big.

Despite Hayek, Friedman and the rhetoric of neo-liberalism - rolling back the state, trickle-down, consumer choice and market efficiencies in the public sector - the state has actually never gone away. Public spending under Margaret Thatcher continued to grow and social protection expenditure in particular has nearly doubled in size in the last 20 years to some £170bn. Now, with UK public sector net debt standing at some 55% of GDP and tax revenues at only 38%, there is a huge annual deficit to fill on top of the massive public debt already incurred by Labour’s fiscal stimulus package.

Keynes once noted that “It is often said by wiseacres that we cannot spend more than we earn ... It would be much truer to say that we cannot earn more than we spend”. So are public sector cuts and swingeing tax rises really the only solution? There could be a case for state investment in support of productive growth: the same state that built Docklands and the financial sector could be building super-fast trains and leading the world in aerospace. Must the state serve to regulate against capitalist excess, greed and exploitation? Will the state lead us out of recession, the vanguard of a new fairer capitalism, or is it nothing more than yesterday’s solution to what are much deeper problems?

Speakers
Dr Vince Cable
deputy leader and shadow chancellor, Liberal Democrats; author, The Storm: the world economic crisis and what it means

Phil Mullan
economist and business manager; author, Creative Destruction: How to start an economic renaissance

Martin Wolf
associate editor and chief economics commentator, Financial Times; author, Fixing Global Finance

Chair
Angus Kennedy
convenor, The Academy; author, Being Cultured: in defence of discrimination

The State and Recession: solution or part of the problem? (first 24 mins only)

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

Battle of Ideas interviews

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

WELCOME ADDRESS 2006
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2006/attractions

The Academy of Ideas is pleased to announce that the 2nd Annual Battle of Ideas festival will be opened by Sir Christopher Frayling, rector of the Royal College of Art, George Brock, Saturday Editor of The Times and James Panton, Tutor in Politics, St John’s College, University of Oxford and Co-convenor of the Battle of Ideas.

Christopher, George and James will also be participating in debates at this year's festival, so be sure not to miss their opening address, which will set the tone for a weekend of contestation and contemplation.

The welcome reception will take place on Saturday 28 October at 10.00am in the Gulbenkian Gallery, where many of the keynote debates will also be occurring.

Welcome address 2006

Listen to recordings of our discussions and debates. Our aim is to expand the boundaries of public debate, to break out of today's echo chambers and challenge orthodoxies.

New tracks tagged #BATTLEFEST